I see that Iím coming in late, but Iím a bit confused about kerryann and L4CXís recent discussion, from reading the last few pages.

Kerryann (and anyone who sees what I may be missing here):

So as I understand what you said below, your thought is that we could get rid of marriage as a secular contract as you see it, and make one contract that everyone follows, which you say will cost money.

Then, L4CX agrees with you, under the condition that it is the best compromise for each side, though it would certainly be a lot of work.

Now if I didnít miss anything from earlier, you now say that those who hold views similar to his should pay for the extra costsÖ.. ??? Didnít you just put the idea forward, while saying it would cost money?
I thought that was your thought on a possible solution; how did he and those who hold views like his end up being responsible for that cost? I didnít see him put that idea forward anywhere, so Iím confused.

No he said earlier to let them be married but have a different process and a different form of union like a domestic partnership for homosexuals and a "marriage" for heterosexuals. I said either make it one process or make it no process. Making it two different processes will create more costs. If we let the government do anything there is going to a high amount costs involved.